User talk:Zpsmi

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zpsmi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. RolandR (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zpsmi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The user Pulseditor is my wife. I had a disscussion with her about the fact that some one is intentionally removing the content that is relevent to the subject. She created an account to make her own edits. We use two seperate computers which are connected to the same router. I noticed that user RolandR also removed contents that she had added. I truely sense bad intentions from RolandR. I was blocked per his request for replacing content at first. Now RolandR is requesting a block because my wife has edited the page. I would rather have a seperate user ID than my spouse. Please unblock my user ID and pay attention to the number of "undos" the user does and warning received by other editors. I think RolandR is an experienced editor and is abusing the systemto keep other editors from cotributing.

Decline reason:

See WP:MEAT and This decision by the Arbitration Committee. It is irrelevent how many people were involved in colluding to edit war. Two accounts opperated by one person or by two people, where the second person is directed by the first to avoid scrutiny, edit war accusations, or other disputes are not allowed. It's OK for your wife and you to participate in discussions at the article talk page, where you both disclose your relationship. It is not OK for you to ask your wife to make edits in your stead, so you can avoid scrutiny. Jayron32 04:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So basically, since you couldn't edit yourself, you got your wife to edit for you? Getting someone to engage in the same disruption as before which you are unable to do yourself is basically proxying on behalf of you and is also not allowed. You knew better. –MuZemike 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the edit times, at the time that my wife edited the page (added content) my user ID: zpsmi was unblocked. I have no reason to vandelize. I requested a review of RolandR undos and other users' warnings as well. I am not aware of a ban on agreement between two adults who happened to be married and live together on the same subject. Also we are both using the same internet connection which is not banned to my knowledge. I do not understand the reason that I am being punished for trying to add content to a page while the person who vandalizes the page is not being blocked. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your second comment from the {{unblock}} template; you do not need to make a request to unblock in order to post on your talk page while blocked, and having multiple requests for unblocking active at any one time doesn't do anything to help your cause. On point, There are methods by which editors who share connections (as with college roommates, siblings, partners, and married couples) can do so without engaging in prohibited sockpuppetry - the issue isn't that two people share a connection, but that those two people seem to have engaged in remarkably similar edits on the same topic. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused about the fact that RolandR is not being blocked for removing content that is sourced from Benjamin Freedman page which I was blocked for earlier. Now I'm just afraid of editing and being blocked as repeat offender, while the person who wanted me blocked is free to edit as pleased. can you point me in the right direction please? Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16 (talk)

June 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Benjamin H. Freedman, you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]